An oral contemporaneous contract which changes the time of performance from that fixed by a complete written contract, cannot be enforced.1 Thus an oral contract contemporaneous with the execution of a promissory note, providing for an extension thereof, is unenforceable.2 So, if a note by its terms matures at a certain time, extrinsic evidence of a contemporaneous contract to renew until the maker's business is in such condition that he does not need the payee's financial assistance, is inadmissible.3 So a prior oral agreement not to foreclose a chattel mortgage at maturity is unenforceable.4 So a contemporaneous oral contract to renew a bill of exchange cannot be enforced.5 So where a contract does not fix the time for payment, and accordingly payment is to be made when the contract is performed, an oral contract for payment in advance is unenforceable.6 So where a certificate of deposit, payable in twelve months was given, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to show that the holder had agreed to present the certificate for payment at the end of six months.7 So a continuing guarantee "until further notice" cannot be shown to be limited to a period of one year.8 So a written contract of guaranty for consignments made to another during one year, cannot be shown to be limited to the first shipment.9 So under a chattel mortgage an oral agreement that the mortgagor may retain possession of the property until a future time, is inadmissible where, by the terms of the mortgage, the mortgagee is entitled to the immediate possession.10 If a written contract for sawing logs shows the method of delivery agreed upon, a contemporaneous oral contract for another method of delivery cannot be enforced.11

1Harloe v. Lambie, 132 Cal. 133: 64 Pac. 88; Allen v. Thompson, 108 Ky. 476; 56 S. W. 823; Tallmadge v. Hooper, 37 Or. 503, 61 Pac. 349; rehearing denied 37 Or. 514; 61 Pac. 1127; Edgar v. Golden, 36 Or. 448; 60 Pac. 2; 48 Pac. 1118.

2 Thomas v. Plow Co., 56 Neb. 383; 76 N. W. 876; Homewood People's Bank v. Heckert, 207 Pa. St. 231; 56 Atl. 431.

3 Hall v. Bank, 173 Mass. 16; 73 Am. St. Rep. 255; 44 L. R. A. 319; 53 N. E. 154.

4 Moore v. Howe, 115 la. 62; 87 N. W. 750.

5 New London Credit Syndicate v. Neale (1898), 2 Q. B. 487.

6 Langley v. Rodriquez, 122 Cal. 580; 68 Am. St. Rep. 70; 55 Pac. 406; Kistler v. McBride (N. J. Eq.), 48 Atl. 558.

7 Citizens' Bank v. Jones, 121 Cal. 30; 53 Pac. 354.

8 Indiana Bicycle Co. v. Tuttle, 74 Conn. 489; 51 Atl. 538.

9Braun v. Woollacott, 129 Cal. 107; 61 Pac. 801.